About Me

We are a specialist consultancy providing support in executive selection, professional development and leadership skills to HR professionals and senior managers across Europe and the Middle East.
Our highly qualified and experienced consultants employ the most advanced and trusted psychometric assessments currently available to assist in senior selection processes and the development of key individuals in small and medium organisations across all sectors.
Contact us now to learn how we can help you make the right choice, every time.

Search This Blog

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

What was your first
experience of assessment centres (ACs)? How were they received by clients at
the time?

My first experience of ACs goes back to the 80s. As a native
German psychologist I did a 6-month internship at one of the largest UK
assessment consultancies and in those days ACs were mainly used for selection
purposes. This allowed me to gain initial experience in design and delivery.

ACs back then were over-engineered (too many measures in
place, too many candidates, using criteria which were poorly linked to actual
performance), expensive, and interestingly involved the CEO in addition to
critical stakeholders, who spent up to 3-4 days on-site with the consultants.
In a sense, the process was more important than the outcome. The intent was to
promote a culture of feedback while allowing the organisation to reposition
talent accordingly. AC providers, as such, were both experts in the deployment
of assessment/diagnostic measures, as well as facilitators of this process.

I then headed a Human Resource Development (HRD) department
at a steel company in the 90s and became a purchaser of AC services, which was
a very useful experience that helped me gain deeper insights concerning the
client’s experience of ACs.

As a client you soon realise the advantages of ACs – e.g. to
get a second (and objective) opinion concerning the capabilities and qualities
of a person, as well as an estimation of their probability for success and
performance once in the role. We also kept into account potential risk factors
associated with the candidate, like counterproductive behaviours or derailing
tendencies associated with their personality.

What were the
preferred methodologies at the time, and how has this changed today?

I would say that the tools of the trade have not changed
significantly, but the application and scope of ACs have.

We still use a combination of multiple simulation exercises,
calibrated and trained assessors, a pooling of ratings, and observation of
behaviour and wash-up sessions. But the evolution and changes of the methodology
appear, among other things, to be linked to changes regarding the nature of
work, the globalisation of business, and the ever-evolving structures of
organisations.

Additional factors to take into account when designing ACs
are cross-cultural skills and mindsets, building workforce diversity,
technological innovations in assessments, new self-concepts (e.g. generation y,
x etc.), and thinking about how the organisation is representing itself to
younger high potentials through this selection process (e.g. professional,
innovative, traditional, etc.).

I think that these changes lead to the following four key
principles for running effective and state-of-the-art ACs:

1)Bespoke
approach: an off-the-shelf AC solution, with pre-designed exercises and
formats is unlikely to meet the specific needs of the organisation

2)Understanding
the role of technology: this will have an impact on the delivery and
administration of AC services and will affect pre-selection processes, assessment
administration, AC set-up (from recording equipment to the implementation of
new technology like tablets for instance), in order to make the entire process
more efficient for assessors and users

3)Sensitivity
to diversity: given the global nature of business today, there is a strong
requirement for understanding cultural differences and encouraging the
development of a global mindset

4)Ethical considerations:
this highlights the need to deploy robust assessments and methodologies – using
high-quality measures and tools that have been independently validated – tools
that do predict performance

In my opinion, combining these four key principles is an
intelligent process that requires careful blending and integration.

Any word of advice
for AC professionals?

I would say that the challenge lies in the implementation of
the 4 principles, which is not always easy. Resources are scarce today, but the
need for high-quality design, tools and implementation is greater than ever.
The market has also become more “transactional” when it comes to buying and
selling AC services, and less of a “partnership” with consultants.

But without partnership it is a bit like going back in time
– the solution will likely be “bulky” and over-engineered, it won’t be bespoke
and it won’t deliver or meet the requirements set by the way business is run
today. The key to success is, in my opinion, in developing a collaborative and
partner-like relationship with your consultants – so they become your trusted advisors. Moving forward, I think that
both buyers and sellers will need to re-shape their relationship, so it can
move from a transactional state to a mutually beneficial partnership.

And last but not least, we need to remember that candidates
are humans and not guinea pigs – they are an integral part of the process.
Whatever the outcome, attending an AC can be a formative and life changing
experience for candidates and negative experiences will inevitably have an
impact on how these services are perceived by the public and in the selection and
assessment markets in general. I think that it is the small things that make a
difference, like being able to build a rapport during feedback, and acting
ethically at all times. I still receive occasional emails from candidates I
have assessed years back highlighting how important the feedback session turned
out to be for them regardless of whether they successfully secured the job or
not. After all, it is not all about selecting “out” – rapport, handling
conversations and managing impact on others is just as important. You can
probably guess that my approach is potentially very humanistic, and indeed I am
a strong proponent of this.

Dr. Uwe Napiersky, MBA Director of the Mindful Global Manager
Programme atAston
Business School & Aston University, specialises in management diagnostic,
management development and e-learning. He has lived in Europe, SE Asia and the
USA and has worked for Fortune100 / blue chip companies across the globe.

Thursday, 20 December 2012

Steve Jobs is arguably one of the most successful businessmen in modern times. He started Apple and NeXT, took a majority ownership stake in Pixar for $10M and after ten blockbuster films sold the company to Disney for over $7B, and around the time of his death Apple had a market cap greater than the gross domestic product of Poland. Apple is one of the world’s most recognized brands and the company’s products have won numerous awards for their technical capabilities, functionality, ease of use, and aesthetics. Because of these results many view Steve Jobs as the personification of the successful business leader, yet Walter Isaacson’s biography paints a picture of a complex and highly flawed individual.

As experts in executive assessment, reading Isaacson’s book prompted us to ask three questions about Steven Jobs and current hiring practices. First, would Jobs have been hired to be the CEO of a start up or a Fortune 500 company if he had to go through a formal assessment process? Second, what would an assessment have revealed about Jobs’ watch outs or development needs? Third, what can we learn from Steve Jobs and his leadership style? This last question is important, as Job’s tremendous success as a businessman has overshadowed some of the critical lessons about leadership.